Targaryens are not immune to fire. It's a myth that has been refuted by a list of Targaryens being burned. Danaerys 'the unburnt' was indeed unscathed when she hatched the dragon eggs, but that has not stopped her being burned on other occasions. See this thread on Targaryen fire immunity.

Not all of them: Valarr and Queen Alysanne had blue eyes. Bittersteel, who like Jon was half first men blood, had brown hair. Baelor Breakspear and his son(s) and Jon's own half-sister Rhaenys had the Dornish look (dark hair, black eyes, olive skin). Rhaenyra Targaryen's three sons all had brown hair and brown eyes even though both their parents had light silver-gold hair.

Had Jon Valyrian features, it would give his parentage away: "He had the Stark face if not the name: long, solemn, guarded, a face that gave nothing away. Whoever his mother had been, she had left little of herself in her son." Tyrion got the bit about the mother wrong, though: his mother was the Stark.

If Jon isn't Ned's son, then why does he look so much like him?

Jon looks very like Arya, and Arya looks very like Lyanna. Jon is Ned's nephew, and Lyanna and Ned looked similar.

Ned is too honourable to lie. If he says Jon is his son, doesn't that mean he must be?

Ned tells Arya that sometimes lies can be honourable. His final words, a confession of his guilt, are a lie to protect Sansa. While a lie can be honourable, cheating on his wife isn't, so Ned's famed honour points to Jon not being his son.

How can Jon be half-Targaryen and have a direwolf?

He's also half Stark, through Lyanna. Ned's trueborn children are half Tully and that doesn't stop them having direwolves.

Why doesn't Ned ever think about Lyanna being Jon's mother?

Ned doesn't think about anyone being Jon's mother. If he did, there would be no mystery. He names 'Wylla' to Robert, but we do not see him thinking of Wylla being Jon's mother.

There's a hidden hint at who Jon's mother might be: In chapter 4, Eddard's internal monologue goes "Lyanna ... Ned had loved her with all his heart." and in chapter 6, Catelyn thinks "Whoever Jon's mother had been, Ned must have loved her fiercely".

Why would Ned not at least tell Catelyn?

We don't have a list of what Ned promised to Lyanna, but know he takes his promises seriously. Maybe he promised not to tell anyone. In Chapter 45, Ned is uncertain what Cat would do if it came to Jon's life over that of her own children. If Catelyn knew that Jon was Rhaegar's son, she might feel that keeping him at Winterfell presented a serious risk to her own children. Ultimately, Catelyn did not need to know, so maybe Ned simply chose to be on the safe side.

Doesn't Ned refer to Robb and Jon as "my sons in the very first chapter?

In speech, not in thought. Ned is keeping Jon's parentage secret. He never thinks of Jon as his son: In Chapter 45, Ned thinks of his children "Robb and Sansa and Arya and Bran and Rickon and explicitly excludes Jon from the list. ADwD Chapter 34 has Bran's vision of younger Ned in the Winterfell godswood: "...let them grow up close as brothers, with only love between them," he prayed, "and let my lady wife find it in her heart to forgive..." which not make sense if they are brothers.

Since Rhaegar was already married, wouldn't Jon still be a bastard?

He might, or might not. There was a tradition of polygamy among Targaryens in the past, so the possibility that Rhaegar and Lyanna married is not easily ruled out. A pro-legitimacy argument is this: The presence of the three kingsguards at the Tower of Joy is best explained if they were defending the heir to the throne, which Jon would only be if he was legitimate.

Can we be certain polygamy is not illegal?

Aegon I and Maegor I practised polygamy. In Westeros, unlike a constitutional monarchy, royals are not subject to the law. So if there ever was a law against it, it did not apply to the Targaryens: In Chapter 33 it says "like their dragons the Targaryens answered to neither gods nor men". Examples demonstrate that it was considered an option for Targaryens: Aegon IV and Daemon Blackfyre may have considered it for Daemon, Jorah Mormont suggested it to Daenerys as a viable option, and she said the same about Quentyn Martell.

George R.R. Martin says in this SSM: "If you have a dragon, you can have as many wives as you want". There is alsothis SSM predating the worldbook.

Weren't the Kingsguard at Tower of Joy on the basis of an order from Aerys, to guard Lyanna as a hostage?

If so, why would they have apparently made no effort to use this leverage against Robert and Ned? Some argue their Kingsguard vows would have taken precedence and still have required them to leave the Tower to protect Viserys when he became heir -- unless there was another that took precedence [Jon]. Others think they were guarding Lyanna as a hostage at the Tower of Joy. Some say that makes little sense: She would better be kept hostage at King's Landing, and wouldn't require kingsguards to guard her. The mere presence of three kingsguards implies something more important: guarding members of the royal family or maybe the heir.

Isn't there an SSM that says the 3 Kingsguard were following Rhaegar's orders though?

The SSM you may be thinking of is probably this: The King's Guards don't get to make up their own orders. They serve the king, they protect the king and the royal family, but they're also bound to obey their orders, and if Prince Rhaegar gave them a certain order, they would do that. They can't say, "No we don't like that order, we'll do something else."

We know from Barristan, protecting the king is the first and most important of all kingsguard duties. Jamie suggests some other KG to stay with the king when he wants to leave for the Trident and we also learn of a ritual that is performed when all KG meet and the king is guarded by someone who is not from the order.

"Protect vs Obey" is an ongoing subject of debate that is unlikely to be settled until we know more. Either viewpoint is compatible with R+L=J.

Wouldn't Viserys take precedence anyway? Rhaegar died without becoming king, and doesn't the world book call Viserys, not Aegon, Aerys' new heir?

No, in the case of an eldest son dying before the king dies, a grandson comes before a younger son. Even in the case the grandson is yet unborn at the time of death, he would succeed (heir apparent vs. heir presumptive). The world book is written with a Lannister bias (it may be propaganda to undermine Dornish support for the Targaryens) and in hindsightby maesters who have never learned all of what we know from Ned's dreams and memories. If it still turns out to be true... see the next answer.

Are matters of succession just as clear as presented here?

Succession quarrels are a part of medieval power play and even a very clear inheritance could well be contested. So maybe in King's Landing things did happen as the world book says. Rhaegar and Aerys may have been at odds over the succession. Rhaegar told Jaime before leaving for the Trident that he intended to call a council, and The Great Councils of the past have dealt with matters of succession. Who would have accepted such a change is a question worth asking.

Ned is dead. Who's going to tell anyone about it?

Bloodraven and Bran may have learned of it through the weirwood network. Benjen might know. Checkov's CrannogmanHowland Reed is the sole survivor of the encounter at the Tower of Joy, and George R.R. Martin has stated he has not yet appeared because he knows too much about the central mystery of the book. "They had found him [Ned] still holding her [Lyanna's] body" tells that there also was someone else besides Howland to find Ned.

Why is this important? What impact can it have on the story?

The careful way the mystery of Jon's parentage was created is reason to believe it's important. What impact it will have on the rest of the series is still unknown.

This theory is too obvious and too many people believe it to be fact. How can it be true?

It is not so obvious to the majority of readers. Some will get it on their first read, but most will not. Readers who go to online fan forums, such as this, still represent a very small minority of the readership. Also, A Game of Thrones has been out since 1996. That's more than 18 years of readers being able to piece together this mystery. Crowd-sourced internet-based mystery solving like this inevitably make solved mysteries seem more obvious in hindsight.

George R.R. Martin is a "breaker of tropes, there can be no hidden prince, it's simply too cliché.

In order to break a trope it needs to be installed in the first place. It is yet unknown what will happen to Jon in the future. Being the son of Lyanna and Rhaegar does not imply the fairy-tale style happy ending associated with the hidden prince trope.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

1. OK, I think we sort of agree here. You suggest that if pressed, Ned would have had a cover story that was untraceable. That supposition is essentially something I suggested before. My recollection is that you stated that Ned did not resort to that story and simply gave the name Wylla as the wetnurse because Ned would have raised more suspicions by refusing to name the wetnurse (assuming that Con 1 happened as you suggested).

I state that we do not at any time see Ned resorting to this story. Instead we see him shut down the conversation without telling any story.

But assuming that he had this cover story ready -- and assuming he named Wylla just as the wetnurse, as you suggested, I am not convinced (and I think we just end up not agreeing) that Ned is safer just saying Wylla's name -- knowing that Robert is assuming the woman to be the mother -- than to clarify the details of the cover story (the unnamed, drunken one-nighter that you described, for example). Here are the choices Ned had (1) (the one you think he took) -- if Robert probes and proves that Wylla is not he mother and confronts Ned, then Ned reinforces that he told Robert she was just the wetnurse and then if he pressed, give him the cover story you suggested or (2) (the one I think to be safer) -- avoid any incentive Robert has to probe any information about Wylla and follow up after giving Wylla's name with the cover story -- for example "Her name in Wylla, but she is just the wetnurse, my son's mother is a woman I met when drunk . . ." (you know the rest of the cover story that you suggested).

Robert doesn't have any incentive to probe anyway, nor the character. And if he probes, Ned still has his story ready and Robert has already expended some of his emotional-probing-resources just to get so far and is therefore less likely to probe further than if Ned gave him that story from the start.You unfairly assume that Robert only probes my story. But if Robert is serious enough to probe, he's going to probe either way. Especially as in my story he's got an answer which he believes already just as much as in your story, it just didn;t come from Ned directly.

You think the less said the better -- I get that and not a crazy view. But keeping Jon safe is the important goal. If Wylla is not a cover story that will hold up -- then leaving Robert with the impression that Wylla is the mother is riskier than giving him a different cover story that he cannot trace. But while I find your scenario possible, I guess I just don't find it as likely as the alternative -- especially given the GoT conversation that I will discuss in more detail in 2. below.

Hang on, your idea is that telling Robert that Wylla is the mother is the safer option (since you say thats what he's done), so you can't possibly argue that just letting him think that without telling him so is more dangerous. One of us has twisted into knots. I'm not sure if its you, or me trying to track you.

One other factor that just occurred to me and I am not sure I ever raised before. Your set of events have Wylla being the wetnurse in Winterfell and presumably under your Conversation 1, Robert knows that Ned is "passing Wylla off" as the wetnurse going to Winterfell. I think Robert would know that Ned would never take Jon's mother back to Winterfell and pass the mother off to his new wife as the wetnurse.

Why? This is a fallen Ned in Robert's view. And Catelyn is a stranger. And the whole point is that Wylla is not being the mother, or having any relationship with Ned, she's just being properly looked after in more than the immediate short term.

If Ned says she is just the wetnurse AND Ned is taking her to Winterfell, then Robert would know that this woman cannot be the mother and must be just the wetnurse. He knows Ned's character well, and Robert would know that Ned simply would never impose such an insult on his wife -- not even if Ned thought he could pass the woman off as just the wetnurse. Ned would know he was "secretly" insulting his wife by bringing the mother home -- and Ned would be risking Cat finding out her "true" identity. So if Robert knew that Ned was taking Wylla to Winterfell, then I find it hard to believe that Robert would also conclude that the woman must really be the mother.

I don't think this makes any sense. You've tied yourself in knots again. There is no insult because there is no admitting Wylla is the mother and no continued relationship.

2. Here is where you lose me altogether and I start to think you are just digging in your heals for no reason (or because, like Donald Trump (if you are following American politics at all), you never back down, only double down). This point is really not central to your thesis at all. You can easily argue that Ned does "confirm" to Robert that Wylla is the mother, but it is 14-15 years later and no one has proven Wylla not to be the mother. So confirming the name is better than reminding Robert that Ned told Robert that Wylla was only the wetnurse. Adding that clarification just opens the door to questions about the "real" mother, so Ned's best of his bad options is to confirm for Robert that Wylla is the mother and count on time making it impossible for Robert to disprove this information. Now that is why I don't think you really lose anything by admitting that Ned confirmed that Wylla is the mother in the GoT conversation -- now I will move on to the main point as to why I think your reading of the conversation is just not convincing to me.

Again, you lose me a bit in here. The simple fact is that the only thing we know about the past conversation is that Ned told Robert exactly the same thing as he told Robert in the conversation we see - the woman's name. Thats all. Period. Simple fact.There is no clarification, no confirmation of motherhood, no tricks or games. In both conversations, the only thing we see or know of Ned supplying the name of a woman. A woman who Robert believes is Jon's mother, but the only information Ned gives that we know is her name, not anything else about her.

For those of us with limited memories -- I will reprint the relevant conversation:

The first part of the question is "And yet there was that one time ... what was her name, that common girl of yours?" Robert does not ask what is the name of the woman you claimed to be the wetnurse but I understood to be the mother. He asks for the name of the common girl of Ned's -- i.e., the woman that Ned had sex with when married to Cat (and thus became mother to Jon). Once Ned gives a name, Ned is answering the name of the woman he had sex with -- not the name that Robert believes Ned had sex with. That reading of that question is not a natural reading of the English language -- Robert asks Ned for the name of the "common woman." If there is not any common woman because Ned did not cheat on Cat (as we believe) or if the common woman is really some other woman because Wylla was just the wetnurse but a different woman is Ned's former sexual partner, Ned cannot answer with the name Wylla without that answer being understandably misunderstood by Robert as the answer to the question of who is Ned's "common woman."

Yes, but Robert's misunderstanding is not Ned's problem. He does not care to correct it.

Now let's move on to the next part of the sentence (skipping the rambling of dismissed names) "You told me once." You keep latching on to this statement. You believe that this statement allows Ned to truthfully give Robert the name that Ned previously supplied as the name that Ned knows Robert believes to be the mother -- without the very act of giving the name in this context as being confirmation of Wylla as the mother. All of your explanations for why this conclusion does not have to be true come across to me as convoluted and unpersuasive. I find it implausible that Ned could walk away from that conversation (the actual one in GoT), and not believe that Robert understands Ned as having confirmed that Wylla is Jon's mother.

Then you aren't very good at communication. (excuse the bluntness)Yes, its clear that Ned knows that Robert thinks the woman is Jon's mother. But Ned at no time positively confirms this. Robert is clearly referring to his existing belief so there is no reason Robert must come away believing that Ned has given him this information because Robert clearly already had it and didn't receive it anew. Ned just hasn't denied it.And as I showed with an entirely plausible Con1, its even possible Ned has directly denied this in the past and Robert still believes it, in which case denying it now is a futile waste of energy.

I do not believe that Robert could be persuaded that Ned only gave Robert the name he gave 14-15 years ago -- and told Robert at that time that she is just the wetnurse.

Except I gave a clear and explicit Con1 option where Ned did deny it, and Robert knows in that con1 clearly he denied it, just doesn't believe him. So your position simply isn't rationally tenable. Robert clearly could, not just be persuaded, but explicitly and consciously know that Ned denied it and told him she was just the wetnurse.

Robert would have every reason to feel deceived by Ned and say to him that if she really was just the wetnurse, then why not repeat that fact when giving the name again, rather than answering a question clearly asking about the name of the mother with a name that is not and never has been represented to be the mother.

Robert has no reason to feel deceived by Ned when Ned has only every told him the woman's name. You don't seem to be able to get past in your thinking that Robert does not necessarily ever have to have believed Ned told him more. That bot the conversation we see, and Ned giving Robert the name (alone) once before are entirely consistent with Robert having a source other than Ned for the idea that Wylla is the mum, and being completely aware of that.

Finally, Robert says "You know the one I mean, your bastard's mother?" So if there was any doubt as to what Robert is asking, Robert is asking for the name of Jon's mother -- not the name Ned previously told him that was denied as the mother but that Robert still believed to be the mother -- no -- the name of Jon's mother. You have deconstructed the sentence (thus, the "cunning linguist" comment I made above -- which if you did not catch it, is part of an old joke about oral sex -- but I digress) so that Ned can argue that he only told Robert the name Ned had previously given to Robert -- which Ned never claimed to be the mother. I just don't see how you can read this exchange that way. Robert asks -- what is the name of the common woman -- you told me before -- you know who I mean -- your bastard's mother. To me, no reasonable person could believe that Robert would possibly accept that when Ned is giving the name that he is not giving the name of the person who actually is the mother -- that Ned is answering the question of the what is the name of the mother -- not that Ned is only answering the question of what name did Ned give Robert years ago. I find that interpretation implausible, unnecessary, and not worthy of your talents.

But your paraphrase is not accurate. Robert has asked for a name but he has not asked if the name should be attached to the bastard's mother. He's attached it himself.What a reasonable person will accept depends entirely on the first conversation. If Ned told him the first time that Wylla was the other, then Robert will naturally read the conversation the way you suggest, any reasonable person would. But if Robert has some other source than Ned for that data, then Robert himself will know that and any reasonable person will not transfer

Let me try an analogy. I admit that it is not a perfect analogy, but it is what I can come up with on the spot. Assume that Joe drives up in brand new car. Paul sees Joe drive up and exit that car and Paul says, "Sweet ride -- is it a brand new car, what model is it?" Joe responds, "It is brand new and it is a Lamborghini Spyder." Now at that point, Joe has not told Paul that the car belongs to Joe, so if Paul later finds out that the car does not belong to Joe, Joe has not told a lie. Assume, however, that Joe does not own the car (and does not own a Lamborghini of any kind) and has a friend who let Joe drive it (crazy friend, I know, but it's my hypo) -- but Paul has taken for granted that Joe owns the car. Nevertheless, no real problem for Joe because no lie (similar to your Con 1).

Similar yes.

But then two years later, Paul sees Joe drive up in the car again. This time Paul says, "I see you still own that sweet ride. I know you told me the model two years ago, but tell me again, what is the kind of car you bought?" If Joe simply says "It is a Lamborghini Spyder," then I believe Joe has just lied to Paul.

But you've completely changed the second question. What is the kind of car you bought is a direct question about the purchase, not a statement about the purchase attached to a question about the car. Robert doesn't ask like that. He asks something more like "I know you told me the 0-100 time two years ago (kind of car I had to change because he's looking at the dang thing!), but what was it again?". He asks for confirmation of data about the car (woman), he does not ask about the purchase (relationship).

Moreover, no amount of "word games" will convince Paul that Joe did not lie to him if Paul finds out later than Joe does not and never did own the car. Now Joe can say something like, "You assumed I owned the car, and I did not want to get into it so I just told you again the model, but I never actually said I owned the car." While maybe technically true, Paul will not see it that way -- or at least, if I were in Paul's situation, I would not see it that way. I would feel that by simply stating the type of car rather than saying, "It is a Lamborghini Spyder, but I don't own it," that Joe lied. And even if not everyone would see it that way, Ned would certainly understand that Robert might see it that way. So Ned needs to be prepared for that response.

I agree, but thats because you cheated and seriously modified the question.

but Ned gave a name to Robert. Similarly, the fisherman's daughter is even more vague and thus obviously based on rumor -- no name is even attached to the rumor.

A name yes, but not a relationship status.

Moreover, Edric Dayne does not seem to have any doubt that Jon is Wylla's son. Edric does not qualify that supposition in any way or even think that it is anything other than common knowledge. Now I have admitted that this behavior is not proof. Edric could have heard it from someone like his aunt, who heard it from staff -- took it to be true -- and used it to tease Edric that his wetnurse is the mother of Ned Stark's bastard. Sure, it is possible. And Edric is a child, so he can be expected to misunderstand some conversations. But still -- he states it as a fact which suggests that someone at Starfall wanted this information to spread in Starfall.

It 'suggests' nothing more than that Edric, a naive kid, with a dubious source, whom we can already tell has a flawed story (Ned shtupping Wylla and knocking her up while in love with Ashara? Honourable never-the-boy-he-was Ned, who couldn't be accused of taking his pleasures? No.) believes it. It does not in any way suggest anyone in Starfall 'wanted it spread'.

So the only two times that the mother of Jon is stated as a fact rather than speculation or rumor -- is from Edric and Robert -- and they have the same name -- the same woman.

And they are both idiots in this area.Good source.

To me, that suggests that Ned and Wylla agreed that because they got lucky and no one can prove Wylla is not the mother, they will use this cover story in Starfall and KL because the only risk to Jon is from Robert and others in KL (like Varys) so those people need to have a story that will keep them from digging any deeper. Wylla -- living at Starfall -- staying as a wetnurse -- works and keeps any digging likely to a minimum. I know you dismiss this theory largely because you find it unlikely that Wylla could have been in a place that Ned could have been (or at ToJ) at the time of conception. I think that the apparent delaying of Jon's supposed date of birth (after rather than before Robb) might be a small clue that this move was needed perhaps because Wylla was somewhere in which she was seen by others at the time of the real conception but not at the "new" time of conception with the delayed date of birth. I also find that kind of "convenient fortune" precisely the type of "unlikely coincidence" that GRRM has relied on throughout the story. This factor is based on something that might be factually unlikely -- but if it happened would provide the necessary cover -- whereas your version requires risk taking on Ned's part that I think is unnecessary for the reasons outlined above.

It suggests that both of them, for whatever reasons, find Wylla a plausible candidate. And that they are naive and given to certainty when they have no cause for it, which we can already see - Robert due to his character and Ned due to his youth.

And I fail to see, despite extensive explanations, why you insist that saying nothing is more risky than saying something. In particular, why saying nothing but not correcting a false belief is more risky that propagating that exact same false belief yourself. Thats a really weird argument.

As to why Ned tells this lie to no one else -- I think the answer is basic -- he does not want to. He only tells this lie to Robert because it is the safest way to protect Jon. He tells it in Starfall because it is part of the cover for Robert. But he does not need to tell Cat anything. And simply giving Cat a name is not going to make Cat feel any better -

Giving her the Wylla's name would make her feel better - Wylla is a commoner and not a famous southern beauty. It reduces Catelyn's concerns both for her own relationship status and for Jon's status (reduces, not dismisses).there really is no good reason why Ned could not give her Wylla's name - unless Wylla came north as the wetnurse, which you are denying anyway.

- it just makes Cat curious for more information. Your dismissiveness toward LV and SFD on this point was, IMHO, unfair and unwarranted. Their explanations were quite valid in my view.

I think yours is as weak as theirs, and that dismissal is warranted in these cases. It essentially boils down to "because I decided" because the explanations simply don't hold up. If he can tell Robert, he can tell Cat. And it would help to tell Cat, in more than one way.

Ned told Robert because Ned thought he had to keep Robert from digging into other alternatives.

Robert is not a digger and Ned knows it. Robert is also eager for a reconciliation (thats Robert's big thing, forgiveness and lets all be happy together, and it was Ned that broke it off in truth) so will have no reason to dif even if that was his nature.And Robert knows whether Ned told him or not, and hasn't dug.Not an acceptable argument.

Ned does not want to tell anyone else because Ned has no desire to spread the lie any deeper than needed and wants to avoid them digging at all.

Then he shouldn't have told Robert. Its fundamentally irrational to say he tells Robert to avoid him digging and refuses to tell anything to anyone else to avoid them digging.

You are saying he wanted the same results for everyone but used exactly the opposite tactics for Robert compared to anyone else n order to get that result. How can you do that with a straight face?

Basically, Ned has different goals for Robert and everyone else. With Robert, the risk is he would dig on his own and search for different alternatives. Giving a "cover story" that holds up avoids this problem. For everyone else, Ned wants no questions at all. Avoiding saying anything to anyone else -- especially Cat who might never be satisfied with the level of disclosure and keep pestering Ned for more -- Ned needs to shut down all questions and all information.

But you just said the goals in both cases are to avoid them digging. And thats true. He doesn;t want Robert to dig and he doesn't want anyone else to dig.The rest is bullshit confusing everyone, including. yourself it seems .

And by the time that Cat mentions Ashara -- it is many years later.

No it isn't. The preceding paragraph sees Catelyn arriving at Winterfell to find Jon and wetnurse already in residence. The next paragraph she finds Ned won't speak a word about the mother, but there were whispers in the castle nontheless. It takes her just two weeks to screw up her courage and ask Ned to his face...

So Ned had no reason to assume that Cat had been thinking Ashara all these years. So before Cat mentions the name Ashara, why would the name Wylla be any more comforting than no name at all -- Cat does not know Wylla.

The name, nothing. But that she's a common woman, which Robert Ned can apparently tell RObert according to you, that would be huge. And equally as huge, just that its definitely not Ashara, that beautiful, mysterious, highborn, southern belle that rumours say Ned loved.Ashara is competition, even forever absent, and a thorn in her developing relationship with this near-stranger she has married. Whereas a common woman is just a forgivable, forgettable, nearly expectable (by her own thoughts) relief while on campaign.And there's a difference for the threat Jon is too. A highborn bastard, is doubly dangerous to her children, as opposed to a common bastard.

It is just a name. But Ned wants no questions asked in Winterfell (or anywhere). And answering one question just begets more questions. So no questions will be answered. Robert, however, posed a different problem -- so a cover story was used to keep Robert from looking at alternatives.

There you go again. Ned wants no questions anywhere (consistent), yet he's busy giving answers in one place but not another (...). Its fundamentally inconsistent and your arguments for it are horribly weak and entirely based on your need rather than character, actions or text.

One other reason I think that Ned did not answer Cat with the name Wylla when she mentions Ashara is that I think Ned expects to tell Jon the truth at some point. So Ned is not going to tell Jon that Wylla is the mother -- just have to undo one more lie. Bad enough to tell Jon that Ned is not the father -- but also that Wylla was a lie as well -- totally unnecessary. And Jon would want to meet her.

Would he? Some peasant woman in the far south? Now an Ashara, yes, he;d want to meet her. But a Wylla? Want, a little maybe, but an easily enough put aside want - she's literally at the other end of the frikken continent, so how is that going to work out then. And even more easily denied, by Ned. For perfectly reasonable reasons.

But Jon's just a baby. There are years, more than a decade in fact, before Jon's wants about the mother he never knew become a factor. And by the time they do, he ought to be old enough that Ned's ready to tell him the truth anyway.

And I don't find the 'don't want to have to correct a lie later' argument to be remotely plausible. Ned's living lies for 14 years already, so he's already in exactly that boat by his own thinking. It doesn't make sense for him to avoid that issue by an action that he thinks leaves him with that issue anyway.

Ned would not want that -- especially if Ned expects to tell Jon the truth some day. So Ned would not want Cat to introduce a new rumor of Wylla that could get back to Jon. Ned just needs to try to shut down this line of inquiry at Winterfell altogether. Ashara works as a presumed mother in Winterfell as a rumor because she is dead -- but Wylla likely is alive. Having Jon hear the name of a woman who is alive as his supposed mother -- especially if the name came from Ned's mouth -- creates new problems for Ned and are unnecessary and bigger issues than letting Cat continue to think Ashara might be the mother.

I agree that Ned wants to shut down all lines of enquiry at Winterfell. He does everywhere, even we see with Robert. But this idea that Nedis worried about little baby Jon's interest in the mother he never knew is quite silly. Thats a problem for over a decade away and a problem faced the same by a black hole as a simple lie and doesn't remotely compete with the issues created by letting Cat think Ashara is the mother.Never mind the problems with letting Robert think one thing and Cat think another.

And, as noted above, if Ned says it is Wylla and not Ashara -- where will the questions end?

A non question, no matter how many times you pose it. They end where Ned says they end, as he already demonstrated.

Pretty much nothing Ned seems to be doing after the knights were dead doesn't make much sense. The destruction of the tower, the burials, how he handled Lyanna's corpse, etc.

I think they all make sense.

In fact, I'd very much prefer it if George revealed that Jon Snow never was at Starfall if Ned found him at the tower. The idea that he could cross the Sands of Dorne

He doesn't need to cross the sands of Dorne, those are southeast. He needs to cross the mountains west and then down the Torrentine to Starfall. There is bound to be a pass somewhere from east to west across the mountains.

with an infant and Howland and possibly some adventurous wetnurse doesn't convince me at all. It would have been much safer if he had handed the child to Howland and charged him keeping it safe in some nearby village or something.

Agreed, but that would not explain the Wylla rumours.And also, its hiding his bastard's existance. Which he never does, only its origins.

The Howland idea is that Aerys commands to find the Knight of the Laughing Tree. Rhaegar's investigation would first lead him to the knights the Knight defeated, then to the squires, and from the squires to ... Howland Reed. Howland would then, presumably, point him to Lyanna after Rhaegar had accused him of being the Knight. We don't know yet whether Howland was aware of what Lyanna did, but he may have been able to guess the truth considering that he knew he wasn't the Knight himself.

Rhaegar's investigation of the squires would lead him to Lyanna, not Howland. To the squires Howland is a nobody crannogman they beat on in a field, its highly doubtful they even know who he is. But Lyanna is the she wolf that chased them off and she's quite distinctive. Their 'report' is going to be that they were beating on some crannogman when the Stark girl attacked them and thats the only thing they can think of that was dishonouable, not that they were beating on Howland Reed.

Mooton was dead when Rhaegar returned, of course, but prior to that he and Connington seem to have been at court. Especially Jon couldn't have risen to the position of Hand without telling Aerys everything he knew. One could assume Jon knew pretty much nothing but that doesn't make much sense if he was one of the companions.

He wasn't though. He was Rhaegar's squire, by position. But he was "the most headstrong amongst the gaggle of young lordlings who would gather around Prince Rhaegar competing for his royal favour", proud, reckless and thirsty for glory. He was associated with Rhaegar by age and position, not at all by temperament. A leader might have a squire in his inner circle, but a leader like Rhaegar won't include a squire like Connington in his inner circle.

As to why Ned, if he had found out earlier, had not told Robert.. What was Robert going to do? Stop rebelling? The rebellion began because Aerys had demanded the heads of Robert and Ned, and nothing that would be going on with Rhaegar and Lyanna would change that fact.

Exactly.

Note we don't know how long before the Trident Rhaegar returned. It could literally be months.But in a civil war you can't make peace with the enemy number 2 unless the enemy is united behind him. And there's no way the rebels could know if the enemy were or were not, and no way Rhaegar could risk a split in loyalist forces trying to find out while the rebels remained in the field.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

That would create some dire problems if they restore all or even a small portion of what was before . . .

Call it Romeo Lima Juliet Tally-Ho Blue rose Walks on a wall, Kings Guard calls no Joy. it's still a done deal and it's been a done deal for a long time. When Vanity Fair, Entertainment Weekly, People and Esquire cover it what else is there. Does Obama need to talk about... wait he did too. Right now you have an argument going that has lasted weeks that is by and large insignificant to the theory, and is really just arguing to argue.

Here is a typical debate these days. On the show when Ned said goodbye to Jon he said they would talk about his mother next time they met. Did anyone notice his lip quivering? Clearly he is either upset or cold. But why would he be cold it is Summer in the north and he is used to the cold, in the books he stands naked in front of a window letting the cool night air embrace. Later Ned will ask for lemon in his water much like Stannis does, but how would he know what a lemon is, their are no lemons in the north. Unless they are delivered as we see the Old Bear take lemon in his bear. Don't you see Ned could of only learned about lemons from Dorne and Jon is always following men who put lemon in their drinks. Because Jon relates to Dornish people where he was born, Dany likes lemon trees, and Jon follows people with Lemons, but their are no lemon trees in Braavos except maybe on the Sea lords grounds along with Blue his pet Velociraptor.

Was their a lemon tree at the Tower Joy, where the Lemon overlords watched the birth of Jon snow? Because the lemons are everywhere and they are controlling everything. I thus submit that Cabbage + Lemon = Sam who is Jon's twin by Dany and Daario who is actually Euron who is really Bloodraven, who is actually Jon. It is the Ouroboros, the circle gets the square, Jon's real name is not Jon but Aegon, and Aegon is actually Jon and Dany is really the daughter of Ashara and Brandon and actually 9 months older than Jon, because Martin only ballparks, and she is a Dayne Stark, and Jon is a? Wait let me go back see what I said Jon was. Ok so Jon is a Cabbage Lemon twin who is his own father who had a love Child with Dany who is actually a Stark Dayne. Hmmm Timeline is wrong, got it after Jon became Bloodraven he time traveled back to the old day and then because was from the future who new about Bran and so he made sure to get him so that he could time Travel son Jon back in time to father Jon to make Jon? I don't something happened with time traveling.

And really I hope you all appreciate this genius theory that took me, for... It took me typing out the first thing that came to my mind really. But you know that is giving and you know me I give and I give. I mean just look at that theory it's a real meatloaf, it has a bit of everything in it, dense and filling yet with a flavor that is both simple and complex. Sure you could just say R+L=J but why it's already been done, what we have here is? Hold on I got to check what I called this before. Oh yeah "Romeo Lima Juliet Tally-Ho Blue rose Walks on a wall, Kings Guard calls no Joy, the Lemon tree is in the Garden the Cabbage has no soup v.3." Why three? It gives it a level of legitimacy without seeming desperate. An original thread you may just pass up but Version 3 is an ongoing debate, something with teeth, that while not brand new is not old and worn out. This is a totally original work that actually just combines actual theories on the board. Should of really found a spot to squeeze in Howland as the High Sparrow and Jojen paste. Maybe another time.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Ser Creighton, I like it, except we need to explain why Sansa's favorite is "Lemon Cakes".

Because the Lemon Cakes are Brain washing her, why do you think she suffers from disconnection and mis remembers so much. The Lemons have Stannis thinking he is a Azor and have him going on death marches.

Since I am in a giving mood, I think I shall give you something a bit more tangible though it is show related and will be in spoiler tags. Pay close attention, the master of the parallels shall give you multiple parallels that fans have failed to notice, the final will shock you. This show can be more subtle than most think.

Show related spoiler

Season 5 parallel spoilers, I have mentioned these before but kept this final one in my back pocket, pay attention.

1. Dany and Jon are given an inverse parallel in clothing, Jon in his black and Dany in white, these two colors have significance to the series. Weather it is the KG and the watch, or the house of black and white, these two colors tend to go together. Dany to this point has been marked by blue and purple on the show. In fact according to the lead costume designer, Dany wears blue because that is the color of her Husband Drogo. She is quoted in Entertainment weekly and if you look closely you will find lots of blue with Dany and that Drogo's war paint was also blue.

2. Loras the Rose, why the scene with his Dornish birthmark? Because Loras is a rose, get it, Rose? Birth? Dorne? And the two men were talking of running away together. Oliver was the mans name. Of course Jon would have his own Olly and both roses would be betrayed by their Olivers.

3. Dany is forced to cut the head off of a slave, for love mind you. The freeman loved Dany and only wanted to help but she had to do her duty. Jon also took a head this year, for hate. Love and hate two heads going rolling on the ground.

4. How many kings were stabbed this year? The answer is unknown? In the books the parallel is an assassination attempt shared by Jon and Dany, it's an inverse. Though on the show it is a bit more simplified. Hiz was stabbed her King Consort. He was stabbed by several men using daggers. How did Jon die again? In the case of the books, I believe we were given 2 boars, and we have actually gotten some poison. Jon did have some wine right before this. Though shock could explain his inability to draw Longclaw.

Kind of irrelevant to what the show did, so again how many kings were stabbed, or King Consorts or future kings? However someone wants to look at it, I don't really care, the show ran parallels, in some cases inverse parallels, perhaps in all cases I would need more information though. But clearly the black and white, the beheadings, the two roses birth and Dorne, Oliver the boy, Oliver the man, one a whore and one part of team abstinence, and of course the man who should be sitting next to Dany. King? King Consort? Whatever, they made the attempt at the parallels, multiple times, prior to the last two episodes.

Now some say maybe I am reading to much into this, because the show just couldn't realize they cast two Olivers for two roses and then referenced Dorne as a birth place and then had both Olly's betray said roses. They just didn't notice they were doing that or the two beheadings, or the double assassination, or the sudden change to black and white in a season that introduced the house of black and white.

You seemed to have little support for Rhaegar in your post as the father. You did an amazing job showing that Ned is unlikely to be the father. You also did a fairly good job showing that Lyanna is likely the mother. It seemed like you didn't put as much effort into tying Rhaegar in.

I believe the quote from Harrenhal really lends weight to a strong attraction form Rhaegar to Lyanna. Less support and much more speculative would be the Knight of the Laughing Tree story and how Rhaegar was tasked to find the knight. You did mention Lyanna beating the squires, but seemed to have avoided some of the mystery regarding Harrenhal.

Robert had been jesting with Jon and old Lord Hunter as the prince circled the field after unhorsing Ser Barristan in the final tilt to claim the champion's crown. Ned remembered the moment when all the smiles died, when Prince Rhaegar Targaryen urged his horse past his own wife, the Dornish princess Elia Martell, to lay the queen of beauty's laurel in Lyanna's lap. He could see it still: a crown of winter roses, blue as frost.

There is also Dany who at times suggests at least she believes Rhaegar was in love with her.

"Death?" Dany wrapped her arms around herself protectively, rocked back and forth on her heels. "My death?" She told herself she would die for him, if she must. She was the blood of the dragon, she would not be afraid. Her brother Rhaegar had died for the woman he loved.

Doesn't Barristan have some interesting quotes about him and Lyanna?

You also didn't use the vision of Rhaegar stating to Elia/Dany "There must be one more" and the "dragon has three heads" which provides even more motive for why Rhaegar abducted Lyanna.

And even less supportive, but could be a link in this chain is the "Pact of "and Fire" and Rhaegar's claim of a "song of ice and fire". Something he could have put together.

You could have given Rhaegar the motive and ability; where no other characters really have the same. I would say that section of your essay needs a tad bit more in order to be perfect.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

BTW, do you think that when the reveal is done, GRRM could be prompted into a sort of "analysis" explaining the clues that he had laid? I'd very much like to know if our interpretation of the subtler ones is correct.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I don't think so. George (and many authors in general) aren't prone to publicly explain clues they have laid in their books. Not to mention that you would look more stupid as author if you admitted that some of the clues your readers thought they found weren't exactly laid intentionally. A lot of people seem to think George is subtler/smarter than he actually is, especially in light of planning the whole story back in the 90s.

All I think we'll get is the complete story of Rhaegar and Lyanna (insofar as it is relevant for the plot, or George feels it is relevant for the plot) and then we'll be able to compare clues from the earlier books to this (complete) story.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

BTW, do you think that when the reveal is done, GRRM could be prompted into a sort of "analysis" explaining the clues that he had laid? I'd very much like to know if our interpretation of the subtler ones is correct.

Have you ever heard Martin talk about clues in depth? More often than not he generally seems to feel he has done enough to get his point across and his answers tend to be in the well duh category. If you are looking for answer to your KG questions and beliefs I think most of them will play out in the books. Like you will know where Jon stands in succession because it will be part of the story. But I don't think you will get well when I wrote then and now what I was saying was...

Things like the blue rose seem simple enough, what is he going to say? No it was not symbolic of Jon but Thorne, cause you know every rose has it's thorns. Get it? That is probably actually a clue a rose and of coarse a Thorne.

Me I am kind of curious about the color of things again and purpose of colors associated with Jon. I know those will not get answered unless it is on a symbolic level. The pair, the twins, not literal twins but symbolic. Shade trees and Heart trees. Black and white which are natural opposites and of coarse blue and red which are symbolic of naturaly opposing elements in the books. If you take the red and blue leaves of these trees, trees that basically do the same thing in promoting visions, if you combine them you get purple. But if you combine the wood you get grey. Dany and Jon's eyes. The idea seems supported in swords as well. When people speak about Azor and his red flaming sword it is a red flaming sword. But on multiple occasions we have also gotten a blue flaming sword and the imagery of twins or a matched pair. I doubt Martin will ever go into detail about that but if we get a purple flaming sword because red and blue make purple then it should be interesting. Or perhaps blue sap mixed with red sap for a super vision. Would Martin be this obvious? Don't know, but like the trees we have very similar swords that happen to have different colors red and blue again.

So what ever happens just hope for some resolve into the questions that is not that hard to figure out. There should be a logical trail to follow when all is said and done.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

there is a good chance that we'll get the tale of Rhaegar and Lyanna and the complete story of the knights at the tower, but I'd not be sure that questions of succession and stuff will actually come up there. I really assume that both Ned and his gang as well as the KG had better things to do to exchange their views as to who was the true (Targaryen) king at this point.

Jon Snow's claim may be discussed after the reveal but it will then be discussed mostly in the actual political situation at this time. Just as Aegon and his gang will most likely never put much effort into discuss the validity of Aegon's claim in comparison to Viserys' claim because the latter is dead, there most certainly won't be any discussion whether Jon Snow had a better claim than Viserys (or the hidden Aegon) back then because nobody should care about this stuff nearly twenty years later.

But then, I'm not really sure whether Jon's claim will come up at all in any meaningful political way at all. We don't yet know how his story will play out, but if he (has to/decides to) stay with the NW or dies during the upcoming fight with the Others before anyone has even time to discuss this thing, it will never come up.

The color and roses stuff might certainly be sort of decoded if we get more information on the meaning the winter roses had for Lyanna. Say, are the dead petals Ned remembers the remnants of the crown Rhaegar gave to Lyanna? If so, then it could be confirmed to be a sign for Lyanna's love for Rhaegar just as we right now think it is. But, say, the meaning of the blue rose on the Wall from Dany's vision most likely will never be discussed in-universe. Only Dany has seen that vision, after all, and for it to become a topic in the story she has to remember it years after the fact as well as be told stories about the Lyanna winter roses symbol which I'd not consider to be all that likely.

The series isn't known for actually discussing clues to mysteries within the books. In fact, it is often kept vague if or when POVs in the books caught certain clues and/or figured something out - for instance, we have no idea whatsoever what Sansa remembers or caught from Lysa's rant at the end of ASoS - since she doesn't know about Lysa's letter nor what the hell the tears were Lysa spoke about, she might not really understand what was revealed there. Another example would be Tyrion figuring out the Aegon mystery - what did he figure out exactly when and how much did he already know/suspect when he talked to Haldon? And what exactly does he think about Varys and Illyrio ultimate motivation? He got a lot of clues about the Golden Company, the extinction of House Blackfyre in the male line, Serra, Illyrio's attachment to Aegon, etc. - but we don't know if he concluded anything from that yet.

Usually, the clues in George's books are deliberately placed and obvious enough to be conclusively identified by the attentive reader. You don't have to make huge leaps or think completely out of the box to catch something plot-related. And therefore George doesn't really have to explain anything later on.

But I sure would demand that he reveal unresolved mysteries. As of yet we still don't know who arranged the Mandon Moore attempt on Tyrion's life but I expect to get an explanation on that at some point.